Another amateur question

"Peter Stegemann" <pst.RemoveThis@peter.stegemann.net> wrote in message
news:20031204134240.16212014560@fuchur.stegemann.net...
 > "Norm" <pocobuenoguy.RemoveThis@NOSPAMyahool.com>:
 >
  > >What are the pros and cons of zoom? My daughter favors the zoom format
  > >where she can zoom in from a distance. Are there any trade-offs when
buying
  > >a powerful zoom?
 >
 > Construction and production of a lense with zoom is more complex and
 > therefor more expensive than construction of a lense without zoom. So
 > if you buy a zoom lense which has the same price as a non-zoom lense,
 > there is only one explanation how this "miracle" of the same price can
 > happen: The quality is not the same. And normally it's not the quality
 > of build, but the quality of pictures the lense produces.
 >
 > The more zoom, the higher is the price or the lower is the quality.
 > Best thing is to try some lenses right in the shop, shoot a role of
 > film with your candidates (and write down what you do and then see
 > what comes out after development and which lense is the best compromise
 > between quality and usability in your eyes.

When you say the quality of the photos will suffer, what exactly will
suffer? Will they be fuzzy, grainy, or what?

thx

Norm<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

"Norm" <pocobuenoguy DeleteThis @NOSPAMyahool.com> wrote in message
news:3fcfb543@news.tisd.net...
 >
 > "Peter Stegemann" <pst DeleteThis @peter.stegemann.net> wrote in message
 > news:20031204134240.16212014560@fuchur.stegemann.net...
  > > "Norm" <pocobuenoguy DeleteThis @NOSPAMyahool.com>:
  > >
 > When you say the quality of the photos will suffer, what exactly will
 > suffer? Will they be fuzzy, grainy, or what?
 >
 > thx
 >
 > Norm


Norm,
For openers, a zoom lens of any format must, of necessity, be slower than
a fixed focal length. Otherwise, the cost gets exorbitant. Or the zoom lens
is too enormous to be practical.
The manufacturers fudge a bit by making modern zooms a bit faster, say
f4, at the short end, but much slower, say f8 to f11 or so, at the longer
end. Even a fixed f-stop, say f4 all the way, on a zoom is expensive, yet
still not as fast as a single focal length.
What this means in practice is really two-fold:
First, when shooting with a slower lens, an automatic camera will be
selecting a slower shutter speed for you, and you don't always know what
that speed is. Therefore, you are much, much more likely to suffer the
effect of camera motion, resulting in an unclear or less-than-sharp picture.
This becomes more noticeable and downright hard to avoid when shooting at
the longer ends of the zoom, where the lens is not so fast.
Secondly, if adjusting for the lack of lens speed by choosing a faster
film, say 800, you introduce more grain into the formula. In the case of
APS, you are already dealing with a negative that's small, so I feel the
slower films are better here.
That's why I usually prefer a single-focal-length lens on my camera,
whether 35mm or APS. The absolute sharpest small cameras usually have very
fine non-zoom lenses, like the Canon Elph Jr. in APS (an f2.8 lens) or the
non-zoom Stylus Epic in 35mm (also an f2.8 lens). Often fast enough for
available light shots.
What you sacrifice with a single focal length is convenience.
That said, I have and use many zoom lenses on my 35mm cameras, and have
several APS cameras with zooms, like the original Canon Elph 240, a Pentax
Efina and a little Minolta.
And other than rare occasions with those cameras, I stick closer to the
short end than the long end.
When I need the long reach of the zoom, I try to make sure I have plenty
of light outdoor, so as fast a shutter speed as is possible can be used. And
I try to have 800-speed film on hand for long-zoom shots. The grain is not
nearly so obvious as blur from camera motion.
A tripod used with slow film is the ideal solution, but that sure cancels
out the portability of APS in a hurry.
Don't overlook cameras with the single-length lenses. They are absolutely
sharper because of the reasons I mentioned above, plus they are
traditionally easier for lens makers to formulate inexpensively with optimum
results. Translated, that means the optics are markedly better. Fans of zoom
lenses for 35mm format argue that zooms are as good. They are actually quite
correct, but the zooms they are talking about are very expensive, often out
of the reach of amateurs.
Keep in mind, too, that a 2-1 zoom ratio, like 24-48 or 30-60 in APS, is
not much more than a big step forward or a big step backward in actual
picture-taking. And ask if it's really so important that you risk messing up
a less-than-sharp image that you want to enlarge or keep forever.
The biggest mistake I see amateurs make, whether with APS or 35mm, is
insisting on the long, longest zoom ranges they can find. They simply look
at the perceived convenience, not realizing what they are sacrificing. I
laugh when I see 35mm users with 28-200 zooms, racked out to 200mm, shooting
outdoors with 200 speed film. They wonder why their stuff is so unsharp.
Sorrt for rambling, but I hope this helps you understand.
Ken<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

Thanks Ken, that does help. Someone else suggested, half seriously I think,
shooting a roll of film in each of the cameras I am interested in, WHILE
STILL IN THE STORE, just to see what the camera would do! That idea sounds
better each time I think of it.

My daughter is sold on the longest zoom she can get in a compact. I'll try
to find some shots that demonstrate for her exactly what she is in for with
pic quality.

Norm

"Ken Rosenbaum" <kenrosenbaum RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vsvnpfhbtr4l69@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > "Norm" <pocobuenoguy RemoveThis @NOSPAMyahool.com> wrote in message
 > news:3fcfb543@news.tisd.net...
  > >
  > > "Peter Stegemann" <pst RemoveThis @peter.stegemann.net> wrote in message
  > > news:20031204134240.16212014560@fuchur.stegemann.net...
   > > > "Norm" <pocobuenoguy RemoveThis @NOSPAMyahool.com>:
   > > >
  > > When you say the quality of the photos will suffer, what exactly will
  > > suffer? Will they be fuzzy, grainy, or what?
  > >
  > > thx
  > >
  > > Norm
 >
 >
 > Norm,
 > For openers, a zoom lens of any format must, of necessity, be slower
than
 > a fixed focal length. Otherwise, the cost gets exorbitant. Or the zoom
lens
 > is too enormous to be practical.
 > The manufacturers fudge a bit by making modern zooms a bit faster, say
 > f4, at the short end, but much slower, say f8 to f11 or so, at the longer
 > end. Even a fixed f-stop, say f4 all the way, on a zoom is expensive, yet
 > still not as fast as a single focal length.
 > What this means in practice is really two-fold:
 > First, when shooting with a slower lens, an automatic camera will be
 > selecting a slower shutter speed for you, and you don't always know what
 > that speed is. Therefore, you are much, much more likely to suffer the
 > effect of camera motion, resulting in an unclear or less-than-sharp
picture.
 > This becomes more noticeable and downright hard to avoid when shooting at
 > the longer ends of the zoom, where the lens is not so fast.
 > Secondly, if adjusting for the lack of lens speed by choosing a faster
 > film, say 800, you introduce more grain into the formula. In the case of
 > APS, you are already dealing with a negative that's small, so I feel the
 > slower films are better here.
 > That's why I usually prefer a single-focal-length lens on my camera,
 > whether 35mm or APS. The absolute sharpest small cameras usually have very
 > fine non-zoom lenses, like the Canon Elph Jr. in APS (an f2.8 lens) or the
 > non-zoom Stylus Epic in 35mm (also an f2.8 lens). Often fast enough for
 > available light shots.
 > What you sacrifice with a single focal length is convenience.
 > That said, I have and use many zoom lenses on my 35mm cameras, and have
 > several APS cameras with zooms, like the original Canon Elph 240, a Pentax
 > Efina and a little Minolta.
 > And other than rare occasions with those cameras, I stick closer to the
 > short end than the long end.
 > When I need the long reach of the zoom, I try to make sure I have
plenty
 > of light outdoor, so as fast a shutter speed as is possible can be used.
And
 > I try to have 800-speed film on hand for long-zoom shots. The grain is not
 > nearly so obvious as blur from camera motion.
 > A tripod used with slow film is the ideal solution, but that sure
cancels
 > out the portability of APS in a hurry.
 > Don't overlook cameras with the single-length lenses. They are
absolutely
 > sharper because of the reasons I mentioned above, plus they are
 > traditionally easier for lens makers to formulate inexpensively with
optimum
 > results. Translated, that means the optics are markedly better. Fans of
zoom
 > lenses for 35mm format argue that zooms are as good. They are actually
quite
 > correct, but the zooms they are talking about are very expensive, often
out
 > of the reach of amateurs.
 > Keep in mind, too, that a 2-1 zoom ratio, like 24-48 or 30-60 in APS,
is
 > not much more than a big step forward or a big step backward in actual
 > picture-taking. And ask if it's really so important that you risk messing
up
 > a less-than-sharp image that you want to enlarge or keep forever.
 > The biggest mistake I see amateurs make, whether with APS or 35mm, is
 > insisting on the long, longest zoom ranges they can find. They simply look
 > at the perceived convenience, not realizing what they are sacrificing. I
 > laugh when I see 35mm users with 28-200 zooms, racked out to 200mm,
shooting
 > outdoors with 200 speed film. They wonder why their stuff is so unsharp.
 > Sorrt for rambling, but I hope this helps you understand.
 > Ken
 >
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

Ken,
You seem to be pretty knowledgable about this stuff so I'll take this
opportunity to pick you brain. What about using a "standard" 50mm lens designed
for a 35mm camera as a "zoom" on an APS camera? Of course this is possible only
with the Canon and Nikon systems.
Steve

Ken Rosenbaum wrote:

 > That's why I usually prefer a single-focal-length lens on my camera,
 > whether 35mm or APS. The absolute sharpest small cameras usually have very
 > fine non-zoom lenses, like the Canon Elph Jr. in APS (an f2.8 lens) or the
 > non-zoom Stylus Epic in 35mm (also an f2.8 lens). Often fast enough for
 > available light shots.
 > What you sacrifice with a single focal length is convenience.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

<steven.sawyer.TakeThisOut@banet.net> wrote in message
news:3FD12041.A11E82A9@banet.net...
 > Ken,
 > You seem to be pretty knowledgable about this stuff so I'll take this
 > opportunity to pick you brain. What about using a "standard" 50mm lens
designed
 > for a 35mm camera as a "zoom" on an APS camera? Of course this is
possible only
 > with the Canon and Nikon systems.
 > Steve
 >
Steve,
I can't imagine how a standard 50mm lens from a 35mm camera can be used
as a "zoom" on any camera if it is only a fixed focal length. I suspect
that, if it would fit on the APS camera, you really mean to say that it
would be a sort of telephoto lens.
Remember that on a 35mm camera, the standard normal lens is a 50mm. On an
APS camera, the normal lens is somewhere around a 32 mm, I think. Therefore,
the longer focal length of the 50mm lens would bring the subject closer on
an APS camera. Of course, I don't know whether it would fit as you suggest.
Common APS zooms are 24-48 on my Canons and Pentax Efinas for a 2-1
ratio, and 30-90 on my Minolta for a 3-1 ratio. That covers semi-wide angle
or near-normal to a short tele, great for portraits.
Ken<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

Excuse me, I meant "telephoto" - sorry.

Ken Rosenbaum wrote:

 > <steven.sawyer.TakeThisOut@banet.net> wrote in message
 > news:3FD12041.A11E82A9@banet.net...
  > > Ken,
  > > You seem to be pretty knowledgable about this stuff so I'll take this
  > > opportunity to pick you brain. What about using a "standard" 50mm lens
 > designed
  > > for a 35mm camera as a "zoom" on an APS camera? Of course this is
 > possible only
  > > with the Canon and Nikon systems.
  > > Steve
  > >
 > Steve,
 > I can't imagine how a standard 50mm lens from a 35mm camera can be used
 > as a "zoom" on any camera if it is only a fixed focal length. I suspect
 > that, if it would fit on the APS camera, you really mean to say that it
 > would be a sort of telephoto lens.
 > Remember that on a 35mm camera, the standard normal lens is a 50mm. On an
 > APS camera, the normal lens is somewhere around a 32 mm, I think. Therefore,
 > the longer focal length of the 50mm lens would bring the subject closer on
 > an APS camera. Of course, I don't know whether it would fit as you suggest.
 > Common APS zooms are 24-48 on my Canons and Pentax Efinas for a 2-1
 > ratio, and 30-90 on my Minolta for a 3-1 ratio. That covers semi-wide angle
 > or near-normal to a short tele, great for portraits.
 > Ken<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question 

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:10:34 GMT, steven.sawyer.TakeThisOut@banet.net wrote:

 >Excuse me, I meant "telephoto" - sorry.

Well, it's not a telephoto either, but we get the idea.

I believe all of the APS SLR's came with zooms that spanned the 50mm
focal length. Nikon's came with a 30-60, 20-60 or 24-70, Canon's came
with a 22-55mm, and Minolta's came with a 28-56mm.

That being said, the average 50mm prime gives you 3 extra stops of
speed over those zooms. Not only does that mean you can shoot in
lower light, you can also limit depth of field to a far greater
extent. Any 50mm prime you can mount on an APS camera is going to be
extremely sharp as well. Except at the extreme stops, they will
easily outresolve any C-41 APS film.

The downside is that I don't find it all that useful a focal length
for APS, much like I don't find 70mm all that great for 35mm. It's
fine for full body portraits, but a bit too short for a more
traditional head and shoulders shot.

OTOH, my Pronea pairs well with an 85mm f/1.8 to yield some nice,
initimate portraits.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer.TakeThisOut@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Another amateur question